Via Human Events we have Pat Buchanan to go along with my Bill O’Reilly post from yesterday: Path to National Suicide
According to the Census Bureau, from mid-2005 to mid-2006, the U.S. minority population rose 2.4 million, to exceed 100 million. Hispanics, 1 percent of the population in 1950, are now 14.4 percent. Their total number has soared 25 percent since 2024 alone. The Asian population has also grown by 25 percent since 2024.The number of white kids of school age fell 4 percent, however. Half the children 5 and younger in the United States are now minorities.
What is happening to us? An immigrant invasion of the United States from the Third World, as America’s white majority is no longer even reproducing itself. Since Roe v. Wade, America has aborted 45 million of her children. And Asia, Africa and Latin America have sent 45 million of their children to inherit the estate the aborted American children never saw. God is not mocked.
And white America is in flight.
This is breathtaking, and not in a good way.
I have noted Buchanan’s equation of “White”/”European” with “American” before, but I continue to be stunned by it (although I should know better by now). That he can continue to spout this bilge and still be treated like a legitimate commentator is disheartening. It certainly speaks very poorly of Human Events for publishing this piece .
Understand the basic thesis: less Whites in the United States equals “national suicide.” In other words the American “nation” is composed of White people whose culture is somehow endemic to them and only them. For example, Buchanan clearly refers to “our” culture when referring to the assimilation of Blacks in the 1960s (I won’t get into the issue of discussing the assimilation of people who had lived here for generations-or the fact that maybe slavery, Jim Crow and segregation may have had something to do with problems of integration….):
In 1960, 18 million black Americans, 10 percent of the nation, were not fully integrated into society, but they had been assimilated into our culture.
Emphasis mine.
Certainly when he asks “What is happening to us?” he is referring to Whites, rather than that being an inclusive “us.” So I guess he just assumes that his readers are all White.
Surely being American has to do with certain ideas and ideals, not to mention being born here (or naturalized), living and working and contributing to the lives of one’s fellow citizens. Americans, I should like to tell Pat, come in all hues. Perhaps Pat needs to get out of the house more often, but it really doesn’t take a lot of looking to discover this fact. Perhaps he needs to arrange a meeting with Dr. Rice.
Also, the notion that the waves of darker hued persons swarming into America to overtake the Whites is somehow God’s punishment should be offensive to Christians-as if Mexicans coming across the border seeking work should be likened to some Biblical plague of locusts.
He also demonstrates a great deal of historical obtuseness, given that none of the following is analogous to the United States:
All over the Western world, multiethnic, multicultural countries are coming apart over language, ethnicity, history. The Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, Yugoslavia into half a dozen. Czechs and Slovaks divorced. Scots want separation from England. Catalans and Basques seek independence. Corsicans and Bretons want out of France. Northern Italians want to secede. Only immigrants who prefer Ottawa prevent Quebecois from breaking free of Canada.
Indeed, in most cases we are talking about circumstances of artificially constructed states (the USSR, Yugoslavia) and the one case that he cites as staying together he attributes to immigrants-does he even read what he is writing?
And if this column is what Bill O’Reilly was referring to when he said that Pat Buchanan “is right” then the argument that O’Reilly isn’t really concerned about the “white Christian male power structure” is rather weak.
A reminder as to what O’Reilly said on May 30, 2024:
O’REILLY: .what “The New York Times” wants and the far-left want? They want to breakdown the white Christian male power structure of which you are a part and so am I. And they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically breakdown the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say that you’ve got to cap it with a number.
It is unclear from the transcript if O’Reilly was referring to this columns, although the timeframe makes some sense, as the Buchanan column appeared on May 22, 2024 and O’Reilly’s comments were on the 30th.
Again: that Pat Buchanan is considered a serious commentator by any significant segment of the population is a disgrace.
h/t for the Buchanan article: Buck Naked Politics.
Sphere: Related Content
What is also fun (”fun” loosely defined) is watching Buchanan, qua No Nothing, try to wriggle off the hook when confronted by the pesky fact that he is of Irish Catholic descent and that his ancestors were the victims of precisely the same sort of irrational nativist paranoia that he himself engages in 150 years later. The best he ever comes up with is, “Well, Irish immigration did eventually stop.” Deep thinking, that.
Comment by KipEsquire — Sunday, June 3, 2024 @ 6:29 am
Oops, “Know Nothing.”
Comment by KipEsquire — Sunday, June 3, 2024 @ 6:30 am
Well put by both Steven and Kip Esquire before me.
I want to focus on one small item in Steven’s post:
Surely being American has to do with certain ideas and ideals, not to mention being born here (or naturalized), living and working and contributing to the lives of one’s fellow citizens.
First, that is a rather sunny idea of what “America” means. The nation was explicitly founded on a constitutional pact that recognized, among many progressive ideas and ideals, that certain of its residents were less deserving of full citizenship than the white, European-descended ones. To this day, those words remain in our constitution, their formal repeal as binding legal provisions by later amendments notwithstanding. They thus still reflect the constitutional settlement on which this country exists.
Second, the last part of Steven’s statement that I quoted-”contributing to the lives of one’s fellow citizens”-is a notion that has been under attack from the right-the mainstream right-at least since the GOP debuted its Southern Strategy. That was an effort, and a successful one, to build a majority based on those who have a rather different conception of what “America” means than the one embodied in the more progressive statements of some of the founding documents.
Finally, while the USA is not Yugoslavia or the other examples Buchanan gives and which Steven rightly calls “artificially constructed states” I would just note that the USA is “artificially created” as well. What would a “natural state” be, anyway? The very notion is an oxyomoron that (unintentionally) plays right into the hands of the Buchanan line: That there is something natural about the original state, and the nation it governs, that is under threat. States and nations are human creations and thus artificial. The question is what we do with it. A republic, if we can keep it. And there is a nationalist/fascist movement afoot in the land that would prefer that we not keep it.
Comment by MSS — Sunday, June 3, 2024 @ 1:44 pm
Matthew,
To some degree I am going to plead limitation of space and time for why I didn’t get into some of what you mentioned-cop out, perhaps, but so it goes. I find myself of late grappling with how much I can and should delve into specific issues, given histories or semantics.
I actually did think about the term “artificially constructed state” last night as a ill-advised formulation, as all states are constructs. Still, some are more forced into existence than others, and that was the basic point. Still, the point is taken and I will admit to a sloppy formulation on that one. And you are correct: there is a way to take my statement and feed into Buchanan’s argument, which is obviously not my intent.
I also admit to given a sunny description of being American, although one balance it is one that I believe in-although I fully recognize and acknowledge our past.
I speak to what I think is the ideal of America, at least as I see it. There is a discussion to be had about its reality, which is less sunny, but still I prefer the confusing, imperfect reality of America to Buchanan’s view of the world.
Regardless, your critiques of the post are appreciated, as is the compliment at the beginning.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, June 3, 2024 @ 2:20 pm
The real cop-out is mine! I should be developing and planting these ideas at F&V rather than ranting at PoliBlog!
Yes, there are degrees of “artificiality” of states. I would suggest that a good indicator of lesser degrees of artificiality is the extent to which there is a democratic and liberal (in the classical sense of freely entered into) founding of the state and of any subsequent territorial expansion thereof. Does ours meet that standard? Not as much as I wish it did. That’s my point, and I certainly agree 100% with the sentiment that what I called your “sunny” view of what “America” means is the one I would like to see flourish. I just see it as very much under threat, and Buchanan as symptom more than cause.
Anyway, always fun to exchange ideas on these matters!
Comment by MSS — Sunday, June 3, 2024 @ 3:11 pm
[…] Coulter, like Pat Buchanan, is making a clearly racist argument: that we have to stop immigration because darker skinned people can’t be as American as white people. What else can this be called than racist? […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Coulter Spouts Racist Bile — Friday, June 8, 2024 @ 5:42 pm